*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« on: June 21, 2015, 03:27:38 PM »
This is primarily a response to Tausami's posts in "Party Membership", but since it doesn't have much to do with the original subject, I thought I'd give it a new thread.

Oh, come on. Quoting a tumblog that's either a) satirical or b) run by a 13 year old girl who doesn't entirely understand the concepts she's angry about isn't fair. Even most of tumblr makes fun of people like that.
You pretending that there isn't a significant proportion of real tumblr crazies (be that feminists, stormfronters, communists, paedophiles, or a combination of those) is something we probably shouldn't waste our time on. So, instead, let's jump to more "serious" media. I'm going to relax the constraints a little bit here, since this particular, vocal branch of mainstream feminism does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather part of a larger authoritarian movement.

Here are some examples of modern feminist or otherwise social-justice-warriory behaviour that also happens to be authoritarian:
Let's throw in a few opinion pieces about "social justice":

Also, the tags 'male tears' and 'kill all men' generally represent someone who is being tongue-in-cheek. There might be people who actually believe that shit, but mostly they're not. The hardcore feminists I know are usually just trying to get a rise out of men's rights activists with shit like that.
This is a response that many people won't accept easily. In a society where both sexes and all races have pressing issues, it's simply not acceptable to ostracise and marginalise one group. Yes, even if it's the big bad evil white man. In the mainstream, we (rightly, in my view) criticise people wearing t-shirts like "w0w babe make me a sandwich", but simultaneously glorify people at the verge of quoting the SCUM manifesto. That's simply not on, and the growing opposition to movements which were once considered "progressive" should be evidence enough.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 03:26:23 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2015, 04:26:33 PM »
Generally it all comes down to context. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all men," then you can be pretty sure they're going to be kidding. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all women," they might just be Elliott Rodgers or George Hennard. The majority of cases people get mad at are outright satire.

I'm not too well-educated on cultural appropriation, and not convinced by several arguments, but a lot of what it comes down to is that, well, take religious motifs. Many people are discriminated against and actively hated for having and displaying their religion: but as soon as it becomes a fashion statement, it's a-ok. Hard to deny the injustice there.

The majority of social justice is born of frustration, more than anything. They're mad, and they've a right to be. Maybe some go a bit too far, but they're allowed to, for the simple fact they don't have the same kind of power as what they're fighting against. When the movement becomes a majority who take to actually killing and maiming, let me know. Otherwise the only reason to be annoyed with them is ego, and that's just a bit pathetic.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2015, 04:47:21 PM »
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2015, 04:53:22 PM »
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').

I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'

Frankly, to me this reads more as an authoritarian and sexist proposal, which someone then noticed might be a bit too out there even for The Guardian's standards, and so they put a little red "provocation" stamp on it to suddenly make it all fine. "This is just a provocation, but..." is the new "I'm not racist, but..."

Generally it all comes down to context. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all men," then you can be pretty sure they're going to be kidding. If someone says "Ha ha, I'm going to kill all women," they might just be Elliott Rodgers or George Hennard. The majority of cases people get mad at are outright satire.
Oh, yeah, because the roles are never reversed. The fact that one side gets disproportionately more media exposure and is taken more seriously than the other is part of the problem, not evidence against it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 05:00:37 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2015, 05:10:29 PM »
Oh, yeah, because the roles are never reversed. The fact that one side gets disproportionately more media exposure and is taken more seriously than the other is part of the problem, not evidence against it.

Isolated incidents do not a social problem make.

Plus plenty of feminists do happily argue against that underreporting. There's the stereotype that women are weak/unable to harm/that no ones cares about it when they do, which is exactly what many fight against. The problem is social problems are and will always be complex, so a lot of people involved aren't educated in any depth: and it's very hard to become educated in any depth when people call for shutting the whole social justice thing down, and there are oceans of misinformation out there.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2015, 05:23:02 PM »
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').

I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'

I've got a couple of short stories that I'm tempted to try to get published somewhere so I've been checking out a few literary websites lately.  Quite a few of them seem to have some kind of positive discrimination policy in place already, particularly American sites. They vary from an insistance on female protagonists, to requests for submissions from female writers or writers from under represented groups.

Rama Set

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2015, 05:31:05 PM »
I think it is worth emphasizing that the "Year of Publishing Women" is subtitled "A Provocation". I never read any serious status quo changing manifesto in to that but rather a very clumsy way of generating empathy for the female representation in that world. Not to say that there are not authoritarian feminists but that that particular piece was more rhetorical than earnest.
I'll take your point, even if I'm not immediately convinced by it. I'm obviously biased. However, to me, this article reads as very explicit in its intent ('I would argue that is time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.', 'Why not have a Year of Publishing Women: 2018, the centenary of women over the age of 30 getting the vote in the UK, seems appropriate.').

I also find it interesting that the author herself chooses to put "provocation" in quotation marks further down the article: 'Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too.'

Frankly, to me this reads more as an authoritarian and sexist proposal, which someone then noticed might be a bit too out there even for The Guardian's standards, and so they put a little red "provocation" stamp on it to suddenly make it all fine. "This is just a provocation, but..." is the new "I'm not racist, but..."


Maybe the "provocation" part was a fiat by the editor to tone the piece down or something I can't say that is impossible. I also found the arguments themselves to be very unpersuasive. For the most part she was talking about 40-46% representation which is awfully close to 50%, so close that you could likely correct for a bunch of non-gender related factors and get damn ode to true equality. Many of the commenters had some sound rebuttal too, like when you get out of the very small world of the book prize and in to pulpit fare, women often dominate. 3 of the top 4 selling authors in history are women for example.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2015, 05:38:23 PM »
Isolated incidents do not a social problem make.
They're as much isolated incidents as male-on-female murders (which is to say, they're not isolated at all). The same applies to other issues, like domestic violence, which is (surprisingly, to many) fairly evenly distributed between the sexes.

I also found the arguments themselves to be very unpersuasive. For the most part she was talking about 40-46% representation which is awfully close to 50%, so close that you could likely correct for a bunch of non-gender related factors and get damn ode to true equality. Many of the commenters had some sound rebuttal too, like when you get out of the very small world of the book prize and in to pulpit fare, women often dominate. 3 of the top 4 selling authors in history are women for example.
Sadly, this is a common thread. Manufactured outrage and exaggerating gender gaps has been the name of the game for years now.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2015, 05:48:50 PM »
Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?

For instance, I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women ought to have equal opportunity of access to civic society.  My political proclivities are already Libertarian, so I tend to view that proposition though a Libertarian lens.  People with more authoritarian bents might come up with entirely different sets of public policy based on the same proposition.  Why am I as a feminist responsible for that?  And in what sense is it fair to say that feminism is to blame?

Your overall negative bias toward feminism is to me no different than if one were to reject Libertarianism because its dominant ideologues are Tea Partiers (gross).  Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), it wouldn't be a very good reason to roundly reject the really excellent ideas coming from the minority of entirely reasonable and intelligent Libertarians.

I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic.  It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable.  "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Rama Set

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2015, 05:54:42 PM »
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell. I do not like terms that are inherently adversarial; try and advocate for the ideology that encapsulates gender equality: meritocracy in the workplace, humanism in the arts, etc...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2015, 06:04:30 PM »
Is the underlying argument of the OP closer to "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted," or "Feminism is inherently authoritarian and should rejected entirely"?
I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream. As such, the underlying argument is "There are some advocates of feminism who are authoritarian and should be resisted, are not resisted, and they're currently the dominant faction within the 'progressive' movement".

For instance, I consider myself a feminist because I believe that men and women ought to have equal opportunity of access to civic society.  My political proclivities are already Libertarian, so I tend to view that proposition though a Libertarian lens.  People with more authoritarian bents might come up with entirely different sets of public policy based on the same proposition.  Why am I as a feminist responsible for that?  And in what sense is it fair to say that feminism is to blame?
You, as a feminist, are responsible, because you allowed your movement to be co-opted by ideologues and warped beyond all recognition. As with any other movement, you're responsible for your own PR. As far as I can tell, you now have few options: either try and reclaim your movement (quite difficult; you're going to have to somehow talk over the kinds of Emma Watson), jump ship and embrace one of the many other egalitarian labels (or don't embrace a label at all - do you need one?), or continue doing nothing about it (which, to me, seems not to be conducive to your cause).

That said, I do feel for you. I used to identify as a feminist and jumped ship when the mainstream started representing the very opposite of my views.

Your overall negative bias toward feminism is to me no different than if one were to reject Libertarianism because its dominant ideologues are Tea Partiers (gross).  Even if that were true (and of course it isn't), it wouldn't be a very good reason to roundly reject the really excellent ideas coming from the minority of entirely reasonable and intelligent Libertarians.
Again, hence my specific focus on mainstream feminism. I'm not attacking libertarians, I'm attacking the Tea Party.

I also just don't think that a smattering of opinion columns from a narrowly restrained set of sources is very convincing evidence that the idea you say is endemic is indeed endemic.  It's just some opinion articles produced by firms that have a negative incentive to write about people being reasonable.  "Reasonable Feminist Holds Exceedingly Reasonable Beliefs" just isn't ever going to be written by a news outlet.
I take a massive issue with you considering my set of sources to be narrowly restrained. I deliberately provided a cross-section of sources from all sides of the discussion and several countries. I deliberately chose to not restrict myself to either opinion pieces or news stories. It baffles me that you'd suggest that TIME, the Guardian, and the Telegraph have a "negative incentive to write about people being reasonable", given that them writing about people being reasonable and having level-headed discussions about things is the majority of their opinion pieces altogether. I don't really know what else I could say. Given our past discussions, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not doing this out of dishonesty, but I must say that I'm baffled.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 06:17:11 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Saddam Hussein

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2015, 06:33:22 PM »
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell. I do not like terms that are inherently adversarial; try and advocate for the ideology that encapsulates gender equality: meritocracy in the workplace, humanism in the arts, etc...

That's feminism.  Humanism (and egalitarianism) are different ideologies, and while they don't necessarily conflict with feminism, they don't focus on gender - and more specifically the treatment of women by largely male-dominated societies.  That's the central theme of feminism, and it gets diluted by trying to rebrand it as something else, as if to imply that, oh, everybody discriminates against everybody else equally, there's no need to focus on any one group in particular, which just isn't true.  Societal discrimination isn't going to go away by simply pretending that it doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 07:02:44 PM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2015, 06:51:06 PM »
Quote
They're as much isolated incidents as male-on-female murders (which is to say, they're not isolated at all). The same applies to other issues, like domestic violence, which is (surprisingly, to many) fairly evenly distributed between the sexes.
You need to actually provide justification when you make claims like that. I tried to find female killers who targeted men, and your example was the only one. Maybe you can argue under-reporting, but that would be circular.
As for domestic violence, I'm aware. That's also something feminism cares about changing.

Quote
Your position is not feminism since you are advocating for a zero-sum gender gap. That is just humanism as far as I can tell.
Feminism is often the same thing: the gender-based issues we face today are a direct result of the fact that, throughout history, women were discriminated against. The unrealistic standards men are held to, for example, are a result of not wanting to be seen as womanly. Get wome to be seen as equal, you'll have sorted out every issue.
Feel free to give any examples you think disprove this. I promise they all tie back to good old fashioned misogyny.

Quote
I specifically used the term "mainstream feminism" to avoid this doubt. There exist some feminists who are pretty cool. They're currently not in the mainstream.
That's rather murky. Mainstream depends on where you frequent: and mainstream anything is always a drastic oversimplification. Mainstream in feminist discourse (which should be the important thing) is not the same as mainstream for most people, because people who don't pursue a subject only get a basic, incomplete outline: that's true for everything, social movements like feminism included.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2015, 07:32:59 PM »
You need to actually provide justification when you make claims like that. I tried to find female killers who targeted men, and your example was the only one. Maybe you can argue under-reporting, but that would be circular.
Funny, that, you didn't need to provide justification when you dismissed the threat of someone saying "kill all men" actually being serious. You also didn't need evidence to claim that male-on-female murders are not isolated incidents, but female-on-male are.

But hey, I do have some evidence archived, so I might as well dump it here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2600488/Sex-crazed-Angelina-Jolie-lookalike-given-suspended-sentence-forcing-taxi-driver-sex-twice-stabbing-not-manage-time.html
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-killed-cheating-husband-with-overdose-of-heroin-1.576435
http://shanghaiist.com/2013/09/27/woman_stabs_boyfriend_31_times_after_he_says_womans_name_in_sleep.php
http://archive.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=53403 (note: this guy survived, he "only" took 5 bullets to his body)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/jealous-woman-20-years-jagermeister-murder/story?id=19546701
http://nypost.com/2013/08/27/rejected-minn-woman-kills-boyfriend-hides-body-in-freezer/
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_25549887/east-palo-alto-woman-who-killed-boyfriend-steak
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205067/Woman-stabbed-man-refused-sex-threatened-rape-went-hospital-treatment.html (also survived, but what a wonderful story!)
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Cops-Woman-shot-killed-boyfriend-in-Pine-Hills-over-cheating/16814162
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-woman-stabs-cheating-husband-death-article-1.1386046
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/us/24brfs-002.html
http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/woman-gets-25-to-life-for-killing-husband-then-hiring-hitman-to-kill-her-lover

This one is unrelated, but I can't help myself: http://myfox8.com/2014/10/23/woman-sets-roommate-on-fire-because-he-threw-away-her-meatballs/

I have more. If you need more, just ask. However, you saying that you tried to find examples of women murdering men and failed only tells me not to trust your research in the future. Isolated incidents my arse.

As for domestic violence, I'm aware. That's also something feminism cares about changing.
You're doing a much better job at showing why mainstream feminism is authoritarian than I ever could. You really need to have a monopoly on equality, don't you?

That's rather murky. Mainstream depends on where you frequent: and mainstream anything is always a drastic oversimplification. Mainstream in feminist discourse (which should be the important thing) is not the same as mainstream for most people, because people who don't pursue a subject only get a basic, incomplete outline: that's true for everything, social movements like feminism included.
Can you show me that level-headed feminist discourse you're hinting at so much? I've been exposed to political feminism and academic feminism, which, as far as I can see, are the only two forms of it which actually stand a chance at having some impact. Where is this "other mainstream"? Does it manifest itself somewhere, or is it a theoretical concept?
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 07:37:39 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2015, 08:29:12 PM »
Funny, that, you didn't need to provide justification when you dismissed the threat of someone saying "kill all men" actually being serious. You also didn't need evidence to claim that male-on-female murders are not isolated incidents, but female-on-male are.
It's very hard to prove a negative, especially in this case: your examples are a perfect illustration. None of those people were motivated by hatred of men, just personal grievances. Completely different to the multitude of killers who actively say that they hate all women. Are you paying any attention to context at all?

A woman can kill a man without being motivated by hatred of men. A man can kill a oman without being motivated by hatred of men.
However, men who kill women because they hate men exist. You've provided one isolated incident of the opposite so far, and that's it. It just doesn't happen on anywhere near the scale of men with a hatred of women. George Hennard, Elliott Rodgers...

Quote
You're doing a much better job at showing why mainstream feminism is authoritarian than I ever could. You really need to have a monopoly on equality, don't you?
How exactly is describing what feminism is insisting that it has to have a monopoly?

Quote
Can you show me that level-headed feminist discourse you're hinting at so much? I've been exposed to political feminism and academic feminism, which, as far as I can see, are the only two forms of it which actually stand a chance at having some impact. Where is this "other mainstream"? Does it manifest itself somewhere, or is it a theoretical concept?
Academic feminism, generally. Political feminism is, like most politics, style over substance. Or, of course, you could actually talk to feminists.

But to be honest, you've made my point. See the bold. If something is unlikely to have an impact, minor disagreements don't matter.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #15 on: June 22, 2015, 12:19:52 AM »
It's very hard to prove a negative
Agreed, but if you're going to demand it of me, you should be ready to provide the same.

None of those people were motivated by hatred of men, just personal grievances. Completely different to the multitude of killers who actively say that they hate all women. Are you paying any attention to context at all?
Ah, so you're asking specifically about cases like Elliot Rodger. Okay, I readily have one to your multitude (two). I'll call that close enough to even. Here are a couple more which didn't happen over "personal grievances", too:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_25268807/el-paso-woman-previously-convicted-common-law-husbands
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article1112110.html

And here's one with a clear theme of entitlement:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548417/Florida-woman-pulled-knife-boyfriend-refused-CUDDLE-not-face-criminal-charges.html

How exactly is describing what feminism is insisting that it has to have a monopoly?
Sorry, that's not what you're doing. You're responding with "Oh, yeah, of course, heh heh, feminism has that too..." whenever an issue that doesn't fit within the (academic) definition of "feminism" is brought up to you.

Academic feminism, generally. Political feminism is, like most politics, style over substance. Or, of course, you could actually talk to feminists.
Right, so it doesn't actually exist. Can't say I'm surprised. Your assumption that I never "actually talked to feminists" is something I'm not going to waste my time with.

But to be honest, you've made my point. See the bold. If something is unlikely to have an impact, minor disagreements don't matter.
Right, except I'm complaining about the only types of feminism which do stand a chance at having some impact. Political and academic - the two most authoritarian and warped types. Didn't you say something about paying attention to context just now?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 12:38:36 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Saddam Hussein

Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #16 on: June 22, 2015, 01:53:04 AM »
Not that I think it's a particularly good argument, but there are plenty of murderers beyond Rodger and Hennard who were motivated at least in part by their misogyny.  George Sodini, Marc Lépine, Benjamin Atkins, and Levi Bellfield made no secret of their hatred of women, and a strong argument could be made that other serial killers who preyed exclusively on women, like Peter Sutcliffe, Ted Bundy, or Steve Wright were almost by definition misogynistic, even if they didn't spell out their beliefs to the extent that other murderers have.

As for the OP, the only thing I really have to say is that simply being a feminist is no barrier to being dumb or having dumb ideas.  I don't feel the need to treat any of them as somehow being representative of my own beliefs, nor that the movement itself has somehow been co-opted or corrupted.  Dumb people gonna dumb.  Let them.  The marketplace of ideas will separate the worthwhile ones from the crap.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 02:02:47 AM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2015, 02:00:47 AM »
Pizza (or Sexy or whatever we're calling you now), I'm a little confused by your position. You're arguing with feminists about what feminism is. First you get around this by defining the argument as about 'mainstream' feminism, but only refer to the most extreme examples you can find. Then, when they tell you that what you're describing isn't really mainstream feminism and that feminism as serious, 3rd wave feminists tend to describe it is about combating gender bias, which (for example) includes making women part of the draft (if the draft must exist) and combating the belief that men can't get raped, you change the conversation again to be about extremist wings of feminism that you've pre-defined as authoritarian.

I guess my answer to you is: if we're defining feminism as only being the authoritarian sects of feminism, then yes. Feminism is authoritarian.


Your assumption that I never "actually talked to feminists" is something I'm not going to waste my time with.

Given how open-minded you are talking to feminists right now, at this very moment, I don't deny that you've done it but I somehow suspect your mind was made up before you entered the conversation.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2015, 02:22:01 AM »
You're arguing with feminists about what feminism is.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about mainstream feminism. Gary asked me for clarification, and I gave it - we are talking about a specific subset of the group.

First you get around this by defining the argument as about 'mainstream' feminism, but only refer to the most extreme examples you can find.
Believe me, I'm very far from referring to anything extreme. I'm focusing on the mainstream, i.e. what gets published and what gets a sizeable audience. I already said that I'd like to see this other feminism. Will you be the one to show it to me?

Then, when they tell you that what you're describing isn't really mainstream feminism and that feminism as serious, 3rd wave feminists tend to describe it is about combating gender bias, which (for example) includes making women part of the draft (if the draft must exist) and combating the belief that men can't get raped, you change the conversation again to be about extremist wings of feminism that you've pre-defined as authoritarian.
I never changed the subject. I started this thread with a very specific set of articles, in response to a very specific series of posts in another thread. If you thought it was about something else than that, that's on you.

To give you a brief reminder: In the original thread (which I explicitly pointed out this is a response to in the OP) you asked how feminism is authoritarian. Parsifal responded with Its original ideals are not. However, a lot of modern feminists like to propose ridiculous rules that silence men in order to achieve gender "balance".' Vindictus then quoted an example of an authoritarian feminist which you dismissed due to it being from Tumblr. I then started the thread and posted a large amount of other examples.

Let me emphasise Parsifal's post, since it's crucial to your misunderstanding here: we all agree that the original ideas of feminism are not authoritarian. We're talking about the actual people who represent the movement, not the ideology as it's written down on paper.

That said, I'm glad that classify the likes of Watson, Valenti and Holman are extremists.

I guess my answer to you is: if we're defining feminism as only being the authoritarian sects of feminism, then yes. Feminism is authoritarian.
Again: I'm defining mainstream feminism as feminism with prominence in the mainstream. If you'd like to show me alternative examples, I'll happily consider them. Talking about hypothetical constructs is completely pointless here. Show me some articles. Show me recent, prominent feminists with considerable public exposure who do not subscribe to authoritarian views.

Given how open-minded you are talking to feminists right now, at this very moment, I don't deny that you've done it but I somehow suspect your mind was made up before you entered the conversation.
You're welcome to assume whatever you want. If you choose to judge me by the tone of my words while ignoring their merit, to misrepresent said words, or to value words over actions, that's entirely your choice. I can't say I'm surprised, given that these sort of strategies are commonly used by authoritarian ideologues.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 02:29:14 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Is mainstream feminism/social justice authoritarian?
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2015, 02:34:05 AM »
As for the OP, the only thing I really have to say is that simply being a feminist is no barrier to being dumb or having dumb ideas.  I don't feel the need to treat any of them as somehow being representative of my own beliefs, nor that the movement itself has somehow been co-opted or corrupted.  Dumb people gonna dumb.  Let them.  The marketplace of ideas will separate the worthwhile ones from the crap.
A fair stance, even if one I disagree with. While I agree that, in theory, ideas should operate under a free-market model, this is practically impossible with the current state of our media and politics. With so many ridiculous laws being passed worldwide, I don't think you can really argue that good ideas magically separate themselves from the shit ones.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume